Check our website previousnotes.com/ for more updates
previousnotes.com/index.php/2... --Click here for notes on this topic.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution grants citizens the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, association or unions, movement, residence, and the practice of professions or businesses. While these rights are fundamental, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order, security, and other specified considerations.
1. Right of LGBT Community in Navtej Singh Johar vs. UOI:
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (UOI) refers to a landmark legal case in India related to the decriminalization of homosexuality. The case is commonly known as the Navtej Singh Johar case because Navtej Singh Johar, a dancer and a member of the LGBT community, was one of the petitioners challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. It was held that section 377 IPC violates Article 19(1)(a).
2. Right to Circulate: In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras:
The Supreme Court held that right to free speech and expression include the right not only to publish but also to circulate information and opinion. Circulation is the lifeline of freedom. Without right to circulate, the right to free speech and expression would have little meaning. The freedom of circulation has been held to be essential as the freedom of publication.
3. Right to Circulate: Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India: The supreme court held that state could not make laws which directly affect the circulation of a newspaper for that would amount to violation of the freedom of speech. The right under article 19 (1) (a) extends not only to the matter which the citizen is entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation.
4. Right to Silence: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: This case is also known as national anthem and freedom of silence case. In this present case three children were expelled from the school for not singing the national anthem although they respectfully stood when the others were singing the national anthem. They approach the H.C. of Kerala against the said order but H.C. upheld the expulsion valid by imposing the fundamental duty. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the students did not commit any offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Also, held that freedom of speech and expression also include the right to silence itself.
5. Telephone tapping case: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, public interest litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by PUCL, against the frequent cases of telephone tapping. The validity of Section 5(2) of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was challenged. It was observed that “occurrence of public emergency” and “in the interest of public safety”, if any of these two conditions are not present, the government has no right to exercise its power under the said section.Telephone tapping, therefore, violates Article 19(1) (a) unless it comes within the grounds of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
6. Freedom of Press: Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India: the Court, observed that, Article 19 of the Indian Constitution does not use the phrase “freedom of press” in its language, but it is contained within Article 19(1) (a).
7. Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India: the Delhi High Court struck down certain Rules framed under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 2003, as ultra vires , and as violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution. This Act impose a blanket ban on the depiction of smoking in films. The court upheld the right of the film maker and to artist to use his medium of project life.
8. Freedom of Press: Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India: the validity of the Newsprint Control order was challenged. The Order fixed the maximum number of pages which a newspaper could publish, and this was said to be violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. The government raised the contention that fixing the newsprint would help in the growth of small newspapers as well as prevent monopoly in the trade. The Court held the newsprint policy to be an unreasonable restriction, and observed that the policy abridged the petitioner’s right of freedom of speech and expression. Hence, any restriction on the number of pages or fixation of page level of a newspaper invalid and violative of Article 19(1) (a).